No. I dispute that he has "loudly trumpet[ed a] plan to impose criminal penalties" on women who have abortions. Those are your words, Matt, and it is quite dishonest to change the language as you embark on your attempt to discredit me.

Since she’s apparently incapable of reading between the lines of such proposals as “Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a Sanctity of Life Act’” she might be interesting [sic] in some other quotations from Congressman Paul such as....

Well, the fact is, Matt, I really am interesting. I'm so interesting that you ought to pay attention to the precise words that I use in disputing you. Pay attention to the text before you embark on your flights of interpretation that you gratuitously insult me for supposedly lacking the capacity to perform. Pay attention to my text and to your own text (which needs editing). You ought to learn to read and be honest about what you have read.

Yglesias goes on to quote something Ron Paul said about the fetus being a person. I'm well aware, as my post clearly shows, that Paul believes the fetus is a person who deserves rights. The issue, however is whether he has "loudly trumpet[ed a] plan to impose criminal penalties" on women who have abortions. He has not done that.

Ron Paul's proposals are about diverting the matter to the state courts, as I clearly describe in my post. Now, if you want to say that voters who care about preserving abortion rights should not trust Ron Paul, then I agree with you. But you should agree with me that he most certainly did not "loudly trumpet[ a] plan to impose criminal penalties." Why can't you just fix your misstatement? Why this pointless pigheadedness? You're doing yourself no favors, Matt, and insulting my intelligence — "she’s apparently incapable of reading between the lines" — is — as they say — incivil.

My services have gotten me into to all sorts of places full of analysts, pundits, journalists, activists, and politicians.

You would be amazed at how dull most of these people are. Interested in their own bailiwick, yes. Ready to sacrifice their time and effort for the cause, yes. But the rest of larger reality can just go hang for all they care.

Why is it even an issue if some candidate, representative, senator, or even president 'wants to ban abortion?' Can you imagine all the legislative, judicial and executive forces that would have to align for that to happen? I can't. How's this for a proposition: it doesn't matter one hoot in hell what anyone's position is on abortion. It won't be banned because it can't be.

Reinterpreting, revising and restating what an opponent says is what the left does best. And if that doesn't work, then they just make up stuff.

You're a law professor, Ann. You should know they invented Critical Legal Studies to get around having to abide by what the words of the Constitution and the law, like, you know, say.

No matter the words, or the context, and the clear intent of the authors, that's irrelevant. All that counts is social justice and income equality and righting ancient wrongs against approved victim groups.

How would you like to be in Limbaugh's position and just have them make up "quotes" from whole cloth that "prove" how racist he is? That happens pretty much every day to him.

When proof shows up that they are liars, they just shrug and say, "Well, we know that's how he feels anyway."

"Reading between the lines" is a kind of Rorschach test, isn't it? Maybe it's Yglesias who really wants criminal sanctions against women who have abortions.

This situation remands me of some brouhaha in Idaho regarding a man who has been arraigned and is about to be brought to trial over the killing of a female Grizzly bear. It seems that on 8 May 2011 an Idaho man shot and killed a mother Grizzly that led her two cubs onto the man's farm where they attack his swine. Fearing for his children's safety he shot the adult. Now he faces a big fine and likely jail time for acting in what he, and most people who know bears, deemed to be the only responsible manner.

Now consider what would happen if a certain wife hired a physician to kill her husband's unborn son. Nothing, right? Bears get protection and humans don't, at least the humans who haven't made it down the magic tunnel into the daylight. But while they're still up there they're vermin -- totally killable at the whim of the owner of that miraculous viaduct.

Now let's assume the woman in hypothetical has delivered her son. The midwife places the neonate into its mother's arms for the first time and, instead of nursing him she kills him, Lady MacBeth style. The woman is now a murderer in the eyes of the law, and will get a long Thorazine vacation for her actions at the very least. Somehow, by some kind of very non-rational fiat of law the baby acquires the protection of society, just by descending that tunnel, while a few minutes before he was at the mercy of his mother's mood.

I'm not saying an abortion is murder or even criminal, as its clearly not in the eyes of current high court opinion. What I'm saying is the opinion that under-girds the law is very, very suspect in the light of reason.

42 million abortions a year is the end in need of protecting; intentionally misstating Paul's position to scare women (...as if he really stood a chance at winning...) is the justifiable means of achieving it.

And this is news, let alone worthy of commenting on? In the performance art of politics, hasn't the role this character plays become a complete cliche say, 30 or more years ago?

Yglesias is at his best when he's just regurgitating some new study or think tank publication. When it's time for original analysis he's all thumbs. And that voice. Ugh. Screech Powers speaks with more finesse.

You still haven't explained how, with a Federal law defining life as beginning at conception, states would be able to allow abortions (or even some kinds of birth control) to be legal--the 10th and 11th amendment notwithstanding.

Yglesias goes on to quote something Ron Paul said about the fetus being a person.

Did you really think that no one would bother to follow the link?

Your statement, at best, deliberately mischaracterizes (unless, of course you are illeterate) the quote from Paul. I will reproduce it here in its entirety, since I know your fans believe everything you say and don't bother to follow your links.

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

Paul equates abortion with one of the greatest crimes of humanity ever carried out and lays the blame on "millions of people" as its agents.

I don't know how you can read that quote and not believe that Paul thinks criminal penalties for all those who participate in the process deserve to criminally prosecuted for their participation. Or do you really think Paul believes we shouldn't have prosecuted those who were participants in Nazi crimes against humanity?

"Read between the lines" and "loudly trumpet" are just not compatible. I imagine Matt will say this is a semantic point, but when you're attributing a controversial policy position to a politician it's not about semantics. It's about being honest.

Second, or twenty. The only thing Yglesias is good for is figuring out how leftists rationalize the complete failure of their policy preferences to have the predicted effect. We don't have to see the full Journolist archives. If you want to know what theconsensus concluded was the best tactic to protest leftist interests read Ygelsias.

Reading through Matt's commenters was frustrating, since it did not appear many of the commenters clicked through the link Matt provided.

Edward Marshall, a "top commenter" said. . .

Ann Althouse somehow thinks that states can sanction the murder of a certain class of people? Am I reading her right?

Huh? I think Matt knows he can get away with distorting Ann's statement because few of his readers will follow the link, and those that do will stick to their talking points rather than engage the opposing ideas.

Whenever the left aborts the economy and the state's feral children run wild and its million promises for an easy life are doomed because it overspent other people's money, they reach for Excalibur: Abortion.

That vorpal blade, they trust, will go snicker-snack, cutting through and through their manxome foe, like so many clusters of cells.

So, another example of lefty faux outrage about something that was never said. What, that is about the 50th so far this morning? Sometimes they are a one trick pony. I am beginning to think that it is not an act and they are really that hysterical. I mean it makes some sense. Hysterical people are not productive, they have trouble keeping a job, you can never do enough to keep them happy, and they are notoriously over-dependent on other people to provide for them and clean up their mess.

I can't speak for other atheists, but I like being named for an angel even though I have no reason to think they exist. The historical and cultural associations of the name are pleasing to me. Rather than name our kids Misty, River, or Jayden I think we will go with Bible names, as my ancestors before me did.

These bozos are insult to Obama voters like me. Pure and simple. They are pseudo-intellectuals. I cannot even believe that as an immigrant, I have to put up with these bozos taking over the progressive wing of democratic party. I think these people are not only less educated than me but even less accomplished. But, they have a paid-blog and a paid-magazine.

Ignore these bozos.

PS: This does not change the fact that Obama will win everywhere due to GOP lack of vision, diversity, deliverables, etc.

Sorry, Ann, you're just wrong. The Sanctity of Life Act would define fetuses as legal persons. This would automatically turn abortion into murder and women who have abortions into murderers.

Furthermore, on the Internet and in life (except perhaps if you're defending yourself against perjury charges under a reasonable doubt standard) you don't get to parse words and say you didn't really dispute what someone said when you disputed something else that they said at the time that made the same point.

Sorry, Ann, you're just wrong. The Sanctity of Life Act would define fetuses as legal persons. This would automatically turn abortion into murder and women who have abortions into murderers.

Furthermore, on the Internet and in life (except perhaps if you're defending yourself against perjury charges under a reasonable doubt standard) you don't get to parse words and say you didn't really dispute what someone said when you disputed something else that they said at the time that made the same point.